1. INTRODUCTION
Employee Motivation or Motivation at Workplace forms an integral part of Organizational Behaviour studies. It is of great importance to employees as they spend a significant portion of their lives at work and hence expect to be satisfied with their work-life. On the other hand, it is of great importance to the management because a satisfied and motivated work-force will deliver higher performance levels.
According to Mullins (2007, p. 250), “motivation can be described as the direction and persistence of action. It is concerned with why people choose a particular course of action in preference to others, and why they continue with a chosen action, often over a long period and in the face of difficulties and problems.”
The theories of Motivation can be broadly divided into two categories:
Content theories of motivation
Process theories of motivation
(Knight & Willmott, 2012)
However, before the two broad categories of Motivation are discussed in greater detail, it is important to note that one of the foremost studies relating to motivation at workplace was the theory proposed by Frederick Winslow Taylor through his “Principles of Scientific Management”. (Mullins, 2007)
According to Taylor, there was ‘one best way’ of performing activities and the people who devise this best way are the managers and the people who implement this best way are the employees. In this case, economic reward given to employees is viewed as a key motivator and this alone should be sufficient to improve productivity and satisfy the employees. However, these principles of scientific management have come under heavy criticism as they attempt to degrade the human employees to “mere machines or automatons” (Drury, 1915, pp. 196) and completely ignore other social and environmental needs of employees at workplace.
2. CONTENT THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
According to Rollinson (2005, p.195), the content theories of motivation “assume that people strive to satisfy a range of deep-rooted needs. While they differ in terms of their assumptions about the relative importance of different needs, it is the desire to satisfy them that is said to energise behavior.”
The major content theories relating to motivation at work include the following:
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model
McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
McClelland and Burnham’s achievement motivation theory
Hertzberg’s two factor theory
2.1Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model
According to Maslow, it is the unfulfilled needs of the employee that result in motivating the employee. Once a particular need or set of needs are fulfilled then they do not act as motivator to the employee and next level of needs surface which then act as a motivator until they are fulfilled. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs consist of physiological needs, safety needs, love/belonging needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs. (Sadri & Bowen, 2011)
The idea that the framework is universally applicable across all cultures has been questioned and that culture plays an important role in determining the motivation of people. (Rollinson, 2005)
People do not fulfill all their needs at work-place. For example, the self-actualization needs may be fulfilled outside the work-place. Hence, the management may not be able to completely understand the employees needs unless they have access to the employees private and social life. (Mullins, 2007)
2.2McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
According to McGregor, the most important aspect in determining the motivation practices in workplace is the managers’ or the managements’ beliefs about its employees. He identified mainly two types of management beliefs’ which he categorized in two propositions. The first being named Theory X and the second being named Theory Y.
Figure 2: Theory X & Theory Y (source: http://105nipunkocharim21.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/theory-x-and-theory-y-references-for-business/)
According to Huczynski & Buchanan (2013, p.287), “managers who subscribe to Theory X believe in giving orders and direct supervision, and in the motivating power of money. Managers who subscribe to Theory Y believe in giving autonomy and responsibility, and in the motivating power of interesting jobs.”
McGregor believed that Theory Y was a more accurate description than Theory X of majority people’s attitude towards work and non-financial rewards can be as powerful, if not more powerful, than financial rewards (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013). This is confirmed by a recent survey that “salary had only a 20 percent impact on job satisfaction” (Sadri & Bowen, 2011, pp 45).
2.3 McClelland and Burnham’s achievement motivation theory
Based on their studies of managers in the United States, McClelland and Burnham (2003, p.117) found that managers fall into mainly “three motivational groups”.
The first group has been identified as the “affiliative managers” who are motivated towards and have the need to be liked and popular among their colleagues and subordinates. Their decisions are focused towards increasing their own popularity within the organization rather than promoting the organizational goals. (McClelland and Burnham, 2003)
The second group has been identified as the managers with the “need to achieve”. This group of managers is not bothered about what other people in the organization might think about them as long as they achieve their goals. They focus on setting and achieving goals and put their own recognition and achievements as top priority. (McClelland and Burnham, 2003)
The third group has been identified as the “institutional managers” who are interested in “power”. This group of managers believe that in order to get things done in an organization you need to possess the ability to influence people. It was found that this group of managers were the most effective and “their direct reports have a greater sense of responsibility, see organizational goals more clearly, and exhibit more team spirit.” (McClelland and Burnham, 2003, p.117)
2.4Hertzberg’s two factor theory
Hertzberg in his two factory theory identifies factors that cause satisfaction (“motivator factors”) and factors that cause dissatisfaction (“hygiene factors”). As noted by Hertzberg (2003,p. 55-56 cited in Knights and Willmott, 2012, p.51), “The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction: and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction.”
Figure 3: Hertzberg two factor theory (source:http://www.johnwiley.net.au/highered/management/istudy/menu/motivation_and_rewards/content_theories_of_motivation/?page=0007)
The Motivator factors are intrinsic to the job and can be identified as “achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and growth or advancement” (Knights and Willmott, 2012, p.51).
The Hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and can be identified as “company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status and security” (Knights and Willmott, 2012, p.51).
3. PROCESS THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
According to Mullins (2007, p.265), “the process theories, or extrinsic theories, attempt to identify the relationships among the dynamic variables that make up motivation and the actions required to influence behavior and actions.”
The major process theories relating to motivation at work include the following:
Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom
Equity theory by Adams
Goal theory by Locke
(Mullins, 2007)
3.1Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom
Vrooms expectancy theory makes the assumptions that people are motivated to minimize pain and maximize pleasure, they are capable of making choices and these choices will depend upon their perceptions and beliefs and the resulting attitudes that are formed from these. (Knights and Willmott, 2012)
The theory is based on the idea that “people prefer certain outcomes from their behavior over others. They anticipate feelings of satisfaction should the preferred outcome be achieved.” (Mullins, 2007, p.266)
Figure 4: Vrooms expectancy theory (source: https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-little-book/9780273785262/html/chapter-033.html)
In order to understand Vroom’s expectancy theory, it is imperative to understand the terms of “Valence”, “Instrumentality” and “Expectancy”. (Knights and Willmott, 2012)
“Valence is the strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome, which can be positive or negative.” (Rollinson, 2005, p.220)
“Instrumentality explores the factors that shape the expectations or valence for an employee.” (Knights and Willmott, 2012, p. 53)
The term of “Expectancy” has been defined by Mullins (2007, p.267) as follows: “When a person chooses between alternative behaviors which have uncertain outcomes, the choice is affected not only by the preference for a particular outcome but also by the probability that such an outcome will be achieved. People develop a perception of the degree of probability that the choice of a particular action will actually lead to the desired outcome. This is expectancy.”
Hence, motivation is a product of the valence, instrumentalities and expectations.
3.2Equity theory of Adams
The equity theory is based on the idea that people place importance on the perception of fairness in how a person deals with another relative to others. Adams (1965 cited in Rollinson, 2005, p.225) uses this idea and explains that an “individual’s motivation to put effort in a task will be influenced by perceptions of whether the rewards obtained are fair in comparison to those received by other people.”
Figure 5: Equity Theory (source: Rollinson, 2005, p.225)
3.3Goal Theory by Locke and Latham
According to the Goal theory, there exists difference in performance of individuals mainly due to individuals having different performance goals. As noted by Knights and Willmott (2012), this theory is based on the following propositions, which are as follows:
Difficult goals result in higher performance than easy goals
Higher goals result in higher performance
Praising, providing feedback and involvement in the decision making process only make a difference when there is a commitment towards a difficult goal
Goals should be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and are Time bound)
Employee Motivation or Motivation at Workplace forms an integral part of Organizational Behaviour studies. It is of great importance to employees as they spend a significant portion of their lives at work and hence expect to be satisfied with their work-life. On the other hand, it is of great importance to the management because a satisfied and motivated work-force will deliver higher performance levels.
According to Mullins (2007, p. 250), “motivation can be described as the direction and persistence of action. It is concerned with why people choose a particular course of action in preference to others, and why they continue with a chosen action, often over a long period and in the face of difficulties and problems.”
The theories of Motivation can be broadly divided into two categories:
- Content theories of motivation
- Process theories of motivation
(Knight & Willmott, 2012)However, before the two broad categories of Motivation are discussed in greater detail, it is important to note that one of the foremost studies relating to motivation at workplace was the theory proposed by Frederick Winslow Taylor through his “Principles of Scientific Management”. (Mullins, 2007)
According to Taylor, there was ‘one best way’ of performing activities and the people who devise this best way are the managers and the people who implement this best way are the employees. In this case, economic reward given to employees is viewed as a key motivator and this alone should be sufficient to improve productivity and satisfy the employees. However, these principles of scientific management have come under heavy criticism as they attempt to degrade the human employees to “mere machines or automatons” (Drury, 1915, pp. 196) and completely ignore other social and environmental needs of employees at workplace.
2. CONTENT THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
According to Rollinson (2005, p.195), the content theories of motivation “assume that people strive to satisfy a range of deep-rooted needs. While they differ in terms of their assumptions about the relative importance of different needs, it is the desire to satisfy them that is said to energise behavior.”
The major content theories relating to motivation at work include the following:
2.1 Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model
According to Maslow, it is the unfulfilled needs of the employee that result in motivating the employee. Once a particular need or set of needs are fulfilled then they do not act as motivator to the employee and next level of needs surface which then act as a motivator until they are fulfilled. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs consist of physiological needs, safety needs, love/belonging needs, esteem needs and self-actualization needs. (Sadri & Bowen, 2011)
Figure 1: Maslows Hierarchy of needs (source: http://blog.simcrest.com/using-maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs-in-communications-128)
Although the Maslows model is a great framework to help in understanding employee needs and motivators, it does have a few weaknesses for which it has been criticized:
2.2 McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y
According to McGregor, the most important aspect in determining the motivation practices in workplace is the managers’ or the managements’ beliefs about its employees. He identified mainly two types of management beliefs’ which he categorized in two propositions. The first being named Theory X and the second being named Theory Y.
Figure 2: Theory X & Theory Y
(source: http://105nipunkocharim21.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/theory-x-and-theory-y-references-for-business/)
According to Huczynski & Buchanan (2013, p.287), “managers who subscribe to Theory X believe in giving orders and direct supervision, and in the motivating power of money. Managers who subscribe to Theory Y believe in giving autonomy and responsibility, and in the motivating power of interesting jobs.”
McGregor believed that Theory Y was a more accurate description than Theory X of majority people’s attitude towards work and non-financial rewards can be as powerful, if not more powerful, than financial rewards (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2013). This is confirmed by a recent survey that “salary had only a 20 percent impact on job satisfaction” (Sadri & Bowen, 2011, pp 45).
2.3 McClelland and Burnham’s achievement motivation theory
Based on their studies of managers in the United States, McClelland and Burnham (2003, p.117) found that managers fall into mainly “three motivational groups”.
The first group has been identified as the “affiliative managers” who are motivated towards and have the need to be liked and popular among their colleagues and subordinates. Their decisions are focused towards increasing their own popularity within the organization rather than promoting the organizational goals. (McClelland and Burnham, 2003)
The second group has been identified as the managers with the “need to achieve”. This group of managers is not bothered about what other people in the organization might think about them as long as they achieve their goals. They focus on setting and achieving goals and put their own recognition and achievements as top priority. (McClelland and Burnham, 2003)
The third group has been identified as the “institutional managers” who are interested in “power”. This group of managers believe that in order to get things done in an organization you need to possess the ability to influence people. It was found that this group of managers were the most effective and “their direct reports have a greater sense of responsibility, see organizational goals more clearly, and exhibit more team spirit.” (McClelland and Burnham, 2003, p.117)
2.4 Hertzberg’s two factor theory
Hertzberg in his two factory theory identifies factors that cause satisfaction (“motivator factors”) and factors that cause dissatisfaction (“hygiene factors”). As noted by Hertzberg (2003,p. 55-56 cited in Knights and Willmott, 2012, p.51), “The opposite of job satisfaction is not job dissatisfaction but, rather, no job satisfaction: and similarly, the opposite of job dissatisfaction is not job satisfaction, but no job dissatisfaction.”
Figure 3: Hertzberg two factor theory
(source:http://www.johnwiley.net.au/highered/management/istudy/menu/motivation_and_rewards/content_theories_of_motivation/?page=0007)
The Motivator factors are intrinsic to the job and can be identified as “achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility and growth or advancement” (Knights and Willmott, 2012, p.51).
The Hygiene factors are extrinsic to the job and can be identified as “company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status and security” (Knights and Willmott, 2012, p.51).
3. PROCESS THEORIES OF MOTIVATION
According to Mullins (2007, p.265), “the process theories, or extrinsic theories, attempt to identify the relationships among the dynamic variables that make up motivation and the actions required to influence behavior and actions.”
The major process theories relating to motivation at work include the following:
- Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom
- Equity theory by Adams
- Goal theory by Locke
(Mullins, 2007)3.1 Expectancy theory by Victor Vroom
Vrooms expectancy theory makes the assumptions that people are motivated to minimize pain and maximize pleasure, they are capable of making choices and these choices will depend upon their perceptions and beliefs and the resulting attitudes that are formed from these. (Knights and Willmott, 2012)
The theory is based on the idea that “people prefer certain outcomes from their behavior over others. They anticipate feelings of satisfaction should the preferred outcome be achieved.” (Mullins, 2007, p.266)
Figure 4: Vrooms expectancy theory (source: https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-little-book/9780273785262/html/chapter-033.html)
In order to understand Vroom’s expectancy theory, it is imperative to understand the terms of “Valence”, “Instrumentality” and “Expectancy”. (Knights and Willmott, 2012)
“Valence is the strength of an individual’s preference for a particular outcome, which can be positive or negative.” (Rollinson, 2005, p.220)
“Instrumentality explores the factors that shape the expectations or valence for an employee.” (Knights and Willmott, 2012, p. 53)
The term of “Expectancy” has been defined by Mullins (2007, p.267) as follows: “When a person chooses between alternative behaviors which have uncertain outcomes, the choice is affected not only by the preference for a particular outcome but also by the probability that such an outcome will be achieved. People develop a perception of the degree of probability that the choice of a particular action will actually lead to the desired outcome. This is expectancy.”
Hence, motivation is a product of the valence, instrumentalities and expectations.
3.2 Equity theory of Adams
The equity theory is based on the idea that people place importance on the perception of fairness in how a person deals with another relative to others. Adams (1965 cited in Rollinson, 2005, p.225) uses this idea and explains that an “individual’s motivation to put effort in a task will be influenced by perceptions of whether the rewards obtained are fair in comparison to those received by other people.”
Figure 5: Equity Theory (source: Rollinson, 2005, p.225)
3.3 Goal Theory by Locke and Latham
According to the Goal theory, there exists difference in performance of individuals mainly due to individuals having different performance goals. As noted by Knights and Willmott (2012), this theory is based on the following propositions, which are as follows:
References
- Drury, H. B. (1915). Scientific Management – A History and Criticism, New York: Columbia University.
- Huczynski, A & Buchanan, D.A. (2013). Organizational behavior, 8th edition, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall
- Knight, D, Willmott, H et al. (2012). Introducing Organizational Behaviuor & Management, 2nd Edition, Hampshire: Cengage Learning
- McClelland, D.C. & Burnham, D.H. (2003). ‘Power is the great motivator’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, Issue 1, p. 117-126
- Mullins, L. J. (2007). Management and Organisational Behaviour, 8th edition, Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall.
- Rollinson, D. (2005). Organisational Behaviour and Analysis: An Integrated Approach, 3rd Edition, Harlow : Prentice Hall Financial Times
- Sadri, G. & Bowen, R. C. (2011), ‘Meeting EMPLOYEE requirements: Maslow's hierarchy of needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff’, Industrial Engineer, Vol. 43, Issue 10, pp 44-48
- http://blog.simcrest.com/using-maslow-s-hierarchy-of-needs-in-communications-128 [Accessed on 28-Nov-2014]
- http://105nipunkocharim21.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/theory-x-and-theory-y-references-for-business/ [Accessed on 28-Nov-2014]
- http://www.johnwiley.net.au/highered/management/istudy/menu/motivation_and_rewards/content_theories_of_motivation/?page=0007 [Accessed on 28-Nov-2014]
- https://www.safaribooksonline.com/library/view/the-little-book/9780273785262/html/chapter-033.html [Accessed on 28-Nov-2014]